COVER STORY | JET STREAMS


inform future regulatory development, particularly around waste classification and site clearance criteria. Continuous collaboration between the project and regulators should be embedded in future policy, potentially through regulatory sandboxes or advisory committees. JDR’s early investment in integrated project controls enabled rapid scenario analysis following the SR25 budget reduction. A detailed Integrated Master Schedule, comprehensive cost baseline, earned value management, and active risk monitoring allowed informed decision-making and transparent communication with stakeholders. External reviewers commended JDR’s project controls as a major strength. Given the complexity of fusion decommissioning, policy should require similar controls, including integrated schedules, transparent cost baselines, and periodic reviews.


Remote sample retrieval work being carried out at JET. Source: UK Atomic Energy Authority


JDR. Originally intended as a “lead and learn” programme for remote handling, tritium removal, and waste minimisation, JDR has reduced R&D due to budget constraints. Policy should ensure that essential decommissioning R&D, particularly work that can deliver long-term safety or cost benefits, remains protected.


On the social side, human capital is critical. JDR’s SWOT


analysis identified the risk of losing experienced staff due to retirements and transfers to other projects, as evidenced by the significant efforts required by the UKAEA to retain a cadre of subject matter experts after JET plasma operations ended. Knowledge retention has been a major focus for JDR with specific projects undertaken to retain knowledge. However, uncertainty in funding has made long term workforce planning difficult. Future policy should require explicit strategies for skill retention and development. Meanwhile, JDR’s strengths include the UKAEA’s deep operational expertise, strong safety culture, and existing site infrastructure that supports decommissioning activities. Opportunities include establishing the UK as a leader in fusion decommissioning, shaping proportionate regulatory approaches, and demonstrating circular economy principles. However, weaknesses include areas such as accountability, regulatory uncertainty, and competition for talent all complicate delivery.


Governance structures Moving from operational culture to a decommissioning mindset required significant organisational change. JET’s historical culture was hierarchical and driven by research, whereas decommissioning demands agility, cross functional collaboration, and value-for-money decision-making. JDR has introduced integrated planning meetings, safety stand-downs, and more visible leadership engagement to successfully foster a unified identity. Governance structures have also been streamlined. Policy oversight should encourage programmes to demonstrate appropriate governance and transition plans. Fusion decommissioning in the UK is governed under a


proportionate, bespoke Environment Agency (EA) regulatory framework, distinct from fission licensing. JDR and UKAEA projects such as H3AT and LIBRTI will provide additional opportunities to develop policy, whether to do with machines or tritiated material, thus providing practical experience to


22 | July 2026 | www.neimagazine.com


Key success factors and the future outlook Despite constrained resources, JDR is continuing to focus innovation on a limited number of high impact technologies such as improved information management, remote handling and waste treatment processes. Formal collaboration with the UK’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) and informal networking with our peer organisations within the decommissioning sector has accelerated knowledge exchange. Policy should support such partnerships and provide dedicated innovation funding streams protected from core decommissioning budget pressures. JDR contributes to national net-zero objectives via


environmental stewardship – by minimising waste, recycling materials, and recovering tritium to maintain fusion’s credibility as a clean energy source – and by enabling future technological development through timely and effective decommissioning. By releasing space and infrastructure at Culham, JDR creates the conditions for new research, industrial activity, and innovation to take place, similar to how site clearance at West Burton enables the delivery of STEP. While this land-release argument applies less directly to legacy nuclear sites constrained by long-lived high-level waste, similar principles are relevant for sites without such burdens, where decommissioning can actively support regeneration and technological reuse. Policy strategies should therefore formally acknowledge decommissioning as a value-creating activity within the UK’s energy, industrial, and innovation goals, rather than treating it solely as an end-of-life obligation. Although JDR’s revised plan has increased delivery


confidence, challenges remain. Delays mean that high hazard components will remain in place longer, increasing overhead costs and requiring ongoing system maintenance. Workforce retention will remain a priority. Should future Spending Reviews allow targeted investment to accelerate critical work, that would likely reduce long-term liabilities. A 2025 Government Gateway Review rated JDR amber/green,


recognising strong planning and risk management. JDR is also exploring innovative contracting models that may offer lessons for similar future projects. The JDR programme demonstrates that successful fusion


energy development requires the same robust end-of-life strategies seen in more established energy-producing settings. Lessons from JDR highlight the importance of stable funding, clear governance, regulatory learning, knowledge retention, and targeted innovation. Policymakers should integrate decommissioning into fusion strategy from the outset to ensure safe, efficient, and sustainable delivery across the full life cycle. ■


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45